Federal cap could limit where cell phones work

Dead zones continue to plague cell phone users in the rural stretches of America and a proposal by the Federal Communication Commission could leave them disconnected, some say.

Greg Smith

Dead zones continue to plague cell phone users in the rural stretches of America and a proposal by the Federal Communication Commission could leave them disconnected, some say.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has made it known in a letter to the chairman of the FCC a proposal to cap federal subsidies that could hinder construction of more cell towers in rural, and what tend to be high-cost areas of America is unacceptable. The proposal was a recommendation by the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service.

The FCC could vote as early as Nov. 1 on a one-year cap on fund payments to wireless carriers. It is not clear whether the cap would directly affect construction of new towers here in Connecticut.

“In today’s world, reliable service is not simply a matter of convenience, it is a matter critical to public safety,” Dodd wrote. “In rural and agricultural communities, cellular phones allow residents to contact first responders much more rapidly in case of emergencies.”

The Universal Service Charge, a percentage tacked on to local, interstate and international line charges, helps to subsidize rural line connections across the country.

It’s not just areas of Alaska and Midwestern towns that have the trouble. Just ask Sterling resident Diane Field, who said she does not try to carry on a conversation from her car as she nears her home.

“There are parts of 14A near the highway where it will go off,” she said.

Contradictory attitudes

Residents fight construction of unsightly towers, she said, but then go on to complain about how bad the cell phone reception is.

“There are occasions folks call and try to report an emergency and we have difficulty interpreting what they’re saying,” Quinebaug Valley dispatch operations supervisor Charles Kelleher said. “With most of the new phones we have the ability to track where they are. It’s close enough to pinpoint and get help to them.”

Quinebaug Valley dispatches emergency services to 17 towns in Windham and New London counties.

“There are occasions it becomes a little bit of a challenge to get an exact location,” he said.

Richard Denomme, on Margaret Henry Road, can attest to the bad coverage. He has just one “sweet spot,” in his front yard.

“That’s it,” Denomme said. “I don’t understand because there are towers two miles from the house.”

With good cell reception, Denomme said he might be able to drop his land line and save some money. He agrees cell coverage is vital to rural areas such as Sterling, but wonders at what cost. He hesitates to support anything without a healthy dose of skepticism about where it is being spent.

Many favor cap
Skepticism about the opposition to a cap is well-founded, according to Adam J. Segal, a spokesman for The Coalition to Keep America Connected. The issue is not as cut and dried as some would make it sound, he said.

Segal said while the money is intended to support initiatives to connect rural communities, it has grown out of control.

“Because of essentially a loophole, wireless companies are benefiting at the cost of consumers. They’re basically taking advantage of the system.”

The Universal Service fund collected $44 billion during the past 10 years, according to a report by The Associated Press. Payments have gone from $131 million in 2003 to an expected $1.1 billion this year, AP estimates. The fund collected $6.6 billion last year alone, split among four government programs, with about $4.1 billion to telephone companies doing business in rural areas.

Segal said the subsidy should be based on actual cost and not on per customer rate as it is now.

Reach Greg Smith of The Norwich (Conn.) Bulletin at 860-425-4219 or gasmith@norwichbulletin.com.

Sister Publications

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Times Reporter ~ 629 Wabash Ave. NW New Philadelphia, OH 44663 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service